The latest in the recording industry's ten-year grudge match with Michael Robertson.

MP3tunes, a music locker service that has spent years locked in litigation with major record labels, announced last week that it was closing up shop. The startup scored a partial victory in court last year, helping to establish the legality of cloud music services in the process. But founder Michael Robertson says that "four and a half years of legal torment" forced his company to file for bankruptcy on April 27.

The filing is only the latest development in a decade-long grudge match between the recording industry and Robertson. Robertson has a knack for starting businesses that threaten to disrupt the business models of music industry incumbents, and they have responded with waves of tough litigation, using every available tactic to drive him out of business. The closure of MP3tunes is another notch in the labels' belt, but it's unlikely to be the last we hear from Robertson.

Round one: MP3.com

Robertson founded one of the first online music companies, MP3.com, during the first dot-com boom. The firm raised $340 million in a 1999 IPO and then launched My.MP3.com, a locker service that allowed users to stream copies of their existing CD collections from the MP3.com website.

At the time, most Internet users were still using dial-up modems, so actually uploading the contents of a user's CDs would have been a long and tedious process. Instead, the MP3.com software computed a fingerprint of a user's CD and compared it with pre-computed fingerprints for songs already stored on MP3.com servers. If there was a match, MP3.com would provide the user with instant access to the copy of the music MP3.com already had. Since users owned the original album, Robertson believed this was legal.

But the recording industry was unimpressed, and it filed a lawsuit to shut the service down. A New York judge sided with the labels. According to Robertson, the damages were so stiff that MP3.com couldn't afford to post the bond necessary to appeal the decision. So the company settled the case and was eventually forced to sell itself to Vivendi Universal in 2001.

Vivendi installed new management at MP3.com. Then, in an apparent attempt to make life difficult for future startup defendants, it ordered the firm to sue its own attorneys for malpractice, arguing that the attorneys should have known that the My.MP3.com business model was illegal.

Round 2: MP3tunes

Robertson wasn't done fighting. After spending a few years creating and running a Linux distributor called Lindows (renamed "Linspire" after pressure from Microsoft), Robertson founded a new company called MP3tunes in 2005.

MP3tunes was strikingly similar to My.MP3.com. Users could upload their music to the MP3tunes servers and then stream it to a variety of devices. The company also operated sideload.com, a music search engine that allowed one-click "sideloading" of music (some of it illegal) from the Web into the user's MP3tunes locker.

The recording company EMI sued MP3tunes in 2007. The lawsuit also named Robertson as a defendant, though the judge quickly ruled that Robertson couldn't be held personally responsible for his firm's actions. After a four-year legal battle, the judge ruled that music lockers are eligible for the DMCA safe harbor, but that MP3tunes had not adequately responded to all takedown requests, leaving it liable for some users' sideloads of infringing music. The judge also found that Robertson could be held liable for sideloading music into his personal locker.

"Defending the lawsuits cost MP3tunes dearly but wouldn't have been terminal if MP3tunes were free to partner with others and grow the business," Robertson said in a Friday e-mail. "But EMI intimidation and outright interference thwarted these efforts."

For example, Robertson said, MP3tunes created a system called Express Listening that allowed users to purchase music from online retailers and deposit it directly into their lockers. But "EMI sent legal demands to existing partners, and potential partners were told they could not work with MP3tunes or risk losing their license to sell EMI music." (An EMI spokesperson wasn't able to comment on these allegations.)

Robertson claims that EMI spent more than $10 million on its legal battle against MP3tunes. He compared his plight to that of Veoh, an online video site that prevailed in a copyright lawsuit against Universal Music but was forced out of business anyway. Veoh's founder cited the lawsuit as a major factor in his firm's failure.

Unsurprisingly, an EMI spokesperson had no sympathy for Robertson's plight. "After four and a half years of Robertson’s bluster and rhetoric, it is apparent to EMI that Robertson has finally realized that his case has no merit," the label told us by e-mail. "While Robertson may believe that MP3tunes will be able to escape liability in the upcoming trial through this bankruptcy, Robertson himself is still a named defendant in the case and the Court has already determined that both he and MP3tunes have infringed EMI’s copyrights."

"EMI will continue to pursue its case against Robertson, to ensure that its songwriters and artists are properly compensated for their creative work," EMI said.

Round 3? DAR.fm

Robertson is a compulsive serial entrepreneur. He is already hard at work on his next project, a site called DAR.fm. And it's unlikely to be any more popular with the recording industry than MP3.com and MP3tunes were.

DAR.fm is a Web-based TiVo-style site for radio broadcasts. You tell it what programs you want to record—Rush Limbaugh, This American Life, or every song on the local oldies station—and it automatically does so. It can access virtually any radio station in the country—and it makes the recordings available for listening from a variety of devices.

As far as we know, DAR.fm hasn't yet faced any lawsuits from content providers. But if the service catches on, legal controversy seems almost inevitable. Five years ago, the recording industry lobbied for regulation restricting recording of music played by satellite radio stations. And companies that do for television what DAR.fm does for radio have all faced lawsuits. A television streaming firm called ivi lost in court last year, and another free-TV streaming startup, Aereo, was sued by broadcasters earlier this year.

Being sued by content companies is almost a rite of passage for online media startups. And many of them don't survive the initiation.

Timothy B. Lee
Timothy covers tech policy for Ars, with a particular focus on patent and copyright law, privacy, free speech, and open government. His writing has appeared in Slate, Reason, Wired, and the New York Times. Emailtimothy.lee@arstechnica.com//Twitter@binarybits

39 Reader Comments

I can't stand the industry and the strong-armed tactics they use - not only against the competition (and they see anyone who can potentially profit from anything they "own" as competition) but even against the consumers and the artists themselves.

I mean, just the comment...

From the article wrote:

"...to ensure that its songwriters and artists are properly compensated for their creative work,"

Is the biggest slap in the face to artists who only really make money off of tours. The money made off sales is paltry and not even worth talking about in comparison to what they make on the road.

I cannot believe that anyone working for them can even sleep at night with a clear conscious. To me, there's a special place reserved in hell for:

a) Child Molestersb) Debt Collectors who harass.c) Any employee of the RIAA or MPAA.

Problem is that most of the artists and songwriters give these guys carte-blanche to sue on their behalf. Until that practice is stopped, you will keep on seeing more of these lawsuits in the future.

And the next problem in that process is that someone has to come up with a venue that can rival them. At which point you're back to my initial post - anything that's competition, they're going to bury.

Perhaps what we *really* need is a creative judge to find grounds for considering the major record labels as a cartel and go after them legally for it.

Wikipedia wrote:

A cartel is a formal (explicit) agreement among competing firms. It is a formal organization of producers and manufacturers that agree to fix prices, marketing, and production.[1] Cartels usually occur in an oligopolistic industry, where there is a small number of sellers and usually involve homogeneous products. Cartel members may agree on such matters as price fixing, total industry output, market shares, allocation of customers, allocation of territories, bid rigging, establishment of common sales agencies, and the division of profits or combination of these. The aim of such collusion (also called the cartel agreement) is to increase individual members' profits by reducing competition.

The lawsuit also named Robertson as a defendant, though the judge quickly ruled that Robertson couldn't be held personally responsible for his firm's actions.

I'm not sure that's exactly what happened. I only read the linked article in Ars but it seems that the ruling was based Robertson's standing to appear before a NY court, not the responsibility (or lack thereof) for his company's actions. I believe in the US there is the doctrine of "piercing the corporate veil" when it is shown that a given company was simply an extension of the will and assets of a physical person - in that case courts have often disregarded the limited liability afforded by a corporation and held the shareholder or shareholders personally liable.

I don't think you can stop these people litigating, I think they are just damage you have to route around. If they don't want to come into the internet unicorn future someone needs to replace them (if you like tech crunch and the valley you may use the word 'disrupt', if you must), in the same way kickstarter has the potential to replace publishers.

(it's a hard problem though, despite the hate labels do provide value, in the form of promotion and marketing, as evidenced by all their music making into the public ear. And marketing and promotion cost money)

"EMI will continue to pursue its case against Robertson, to ensure that its songwriters and artists are properly compensated for their creative work," EMI said.

I'd like to hear them say under oath that their sole interest is the above underlined for these lawsuits. After a good perjury charge, maybe some healthy dose of reality might settle in.

I don't understand why these Judges haven't wisened up more to these copyright trolls (valid name, no? They produce none of the products they sue over?).

Problem is that most of the artists and songwriters give these guys carte-blanche to sue on their behalf. Until that practice is stopped, you will keep on seeing more of these lawsuits in the future.

They're not suing "on behalf" of artists and songwriters - in the vast majority of cases, labels are the OWNERS of all copyrights, so they're suing in their own name and don't need permission. The "compensation" they refer to is the royalties they agree to give authors and performers in exchange for full copyrights. But royalties are rarely even close to 50% of revenue, so labels stand to gain much more than authors from music sales.

As far as DAR.fm, I don't have much positive hope for it. RadioTime was doing this for quite some time and couldn't make a go of it. All the pieces are there technically. The problem is, it's a miss. No one wants to record radio shows. It's a throw-away media. Great to listen to for a period in the car but if you miss something it's a non-issue. You're not going to listen to someone rail about yesterday's news tomorrow.

I can't stand the industry and the strong-armed tactics they use - not only against the competition (and they see anyone who can potentially profit from anything they "own" as competition) but even against the consumers and the artists themselves.

I mean, just the comment...

From the article wrote:

"...to ensure that its songwriters and artists are properly compensated for their creative work,"

Is the biggest slap in the face to artists who only really make money off of tours. The money made off sales is paltry and not even worth talking about in comparison to what they make on the road.

I cannot believe that anyone working for them can even sleep at night with a clear conscious. To me, there's a special place reserved in hell for:

a) Child Molestersb) Debt Collectors who harass.c) Any employee of the RIAA or MPAA.

+1I hate the MAFIAA Industry and feel no sympathy at all for them or for any stupid Sell-Out Artist who sings with them.And I am an INDIE Artist who has a around 6 physical releases over the years.I am an original punk of the 70's and I have hated Big Label Music since the Mid to Late 70's.My main loves anyways were always about Garage, Psych, Hard Rock, ETC that was Obscure and mostly put out on small private or small Labels Vinvyl.

The only money I will spend on music or video is when it's clear to me the money is going directly the artist. This is a select few but there are examples out there. Otherwise, I download it guilt free. Until I see a significant change in business practices (unlikely in my lifetime), the RIAA and MPAA will not see revenues from me.

What's really a shame is that guys like Robertson's big victory is that eventually they'll be on the right side of history. I understand Big Media's desire to resist change because change is expensive but seriously, when are the people in charge going to learn that the internet is not a fad?

As long as the recording and movie industries do not realize that charging $0.99 for a song or $19.99 for a DVD that require fractional cents to produce ... especially in this age of digitalized media starting from the recording equipment onwards, with next to nothing overhead for production of hard copy media, they will just encourage more people to go to the cloud to source their media needs (legal or otherwise).

Most people I know would never pay so much money, ever for virtual media, not because they are cheap-skates but because they've wised up to the ripoff that digital media is (even BDs, DVDs, CDs forget about MP3 or MP4 files). The public has no business lining the pockets of media company honchos and CEOs whose contributions to production and creation of good art is zero if not negative in real-world value. It was a different issue 20+ years back when optical media or older vinyl media used to cost real materials and money to produce.

The more the media companies persist in this looting, the more people will go over to the piracy route to feed their requirements, and with legitimate businesses like Spotify, etc. out there (they haven't attacked those as yet (and as a EU based company currently out of the MAFIAA's direct legal reach) - buying each song for a dollar is going to b a thing of the past, prices need to be grounded in reality, otherwise the MAFIAA is just shooting themselves in the foot, and will sink sooner or later.

The only money I will spend on music or video is when it's clear to me the money is going directly the artist. This is a select few but there are examples out there. Otherwise, I download it guilt free. Until I see a significant change in business practices (unlikely in my lifetime), the RIAA and MPAA will not see revenues from me.

How can we the customer of big music kick them where it really hurts? Their tired excuse for a business model makes no sense in the modern world and outside of the courtroom its adapt or die baby. Our problem is that within the court system the RIAA(who sponsored sopa) write and enforce their own rules. So long as they have enough money to buy the best lawyers and politicians that is always going to be the case.

I wish Mr. Robertson the best of luck. He seems drawn to doomed ventures but at the same time he is right at the bleeding edge of how we use (or want to use) connectivity. He comes across as a trailblazer for us.

The day is fast approaching when musicians selling their wares directly to consumers will be the standard, instead of the abnormality.

That'll be at least on **AA buried, though for now it continues to flail about in a wild zombie dance.

I'm pretty sure they're well aware of this -- which is why they're fighting so hard to keep it from happening.

The problem here isn't so much the **AA as it is the mega labels/studios that pull their strings. As cost to produce quality content continues to fall off a cliff, so too will their power.

Edit: typo * 2

It's not that direct sales don't work - I think I read somewhere that Radiohead (the actual band) made more money from In Rainbows, which was available outside any major label for any price starting at $0, than any other before. Unfortunately, most people will still prefer to be spoon-fed the latest tracks from the latest superstar, and it takes lots of marketing to get there. I don't see labels going away any time soon. Indie artists will remain in the margins, with the occasional exception.

The day is fast approaching when musicians selling their wares directly to consumers will be the standard, instead of the abnormality.

That'll be at least on **AA buried, though for now it continues to flail about in a wild zombie dance.

I'm pretty sure they're well aware of this -- which is why they're fighting so hard to keep it from happening.

The problem here isn't so much the **AA as it is the mega labels/studios that pull their strings. As cost to produce quality content continues to fall off a cliff, so too will their power.

Edit: typo * 2

It's not that direct sales don't work - I think I read somewhere that Radiohead (the actual band) made more money from In Rainbows, which was available outside any major label for any price starting at $0, than any other before. Unfortunately, most people will still prefer to be spoon-fed the latest tracks from the latest superstar, and it takes lots of marketing to get there. I don't see labels going away any time soon. Indie artists will remain in the margins, with the occasional exception.

I'm not championing direct sales, just that major labels will become a lot less major. They will always exist for exactly the reason you mentioned. Music subscription services, etc. make it retard simple to find new music that you will like, unfortunately, people like my girlfriend still don't click play on bands they haven't heard 5,000 times before for whatever reason.

However, a lot more people will click that play button and divide a lot more of the pie amongst a lot more people thus leaving a lot less for the major labels.

And at that point, the major labels will finally adapt and buy up all the little guys, because at that point, the little guys will be tired of fighting the battle against the major labels and just looking to cash out, and thus, the cycle will be complete.

How much money have the major labels have missed out on by not inventing these kinds of services on their own, or by not partnering with people who have? They had to be dragged kicking and screaming into the world of direct sales of non-DRM-encumbered formats, streaming, and now locker services. In every case, by the time they decided to stop fighting it, half the ships had already sailed. Locker services should've and could've easily been monetized a decade ago!

This circus has reached the point where no sane entrepreneur even wants to touch any idea that has to do with media content. In fact, for a newly created company that wants to make the use of recorded media easier for the public, there are only two routes:- establish yourself in a western country, where you can supposedly build ties with distributors, technology support, etc. to try and build a viable alternative, and... get sued into oblivion- set up shop in a banana republic, give up some money to the local organized crime, make illegal copies all you want and... profit.

The day is fast approaching when musicians selling their wares directly to consumers will be the standard, instead of the abnormality.

That'll be at least on **AA buried, though for now it continues to flail about in a wild zombie dance.

I'm pretty sure they're well aware of this -- which is why they're fighting so hard to keep it from happening.

The problem here isn't so much the **AA as it is the mega labels/studios that pull their strings. As cost to produce quality content continues to fall off a cliff, so too will their power.

Edit: typo * 2

The whole problem with "...musicians selling their wares directly to consumers..." is it assumes that the musicians aren't just good musicians but also good business managers, marketers, promoters, producers, etc. SOMETIMES this is true, but rarely. In fact, I'd say that typically the kind of person that makes the best musician is also usually the last person you'd want to be in charge of a business. It almost seems to be mutually exclusive. Most musicians would prefer to just make music and let someone else handle the nuts and bolts part of the business world that they can't or don't want to. So the musicians need help from others, sometimes many others.

Ever seen an artist have a blockbuster debut album and the follow-up is a flop? This is frequently due to the "artist" assuming that after their initial success they now know enough to produce their own material and don't realize that the PRODUCER had a lot more to do with the success of their project than they did.

So musicians have to make a calculated gamble on whether to crawl into bed with a label. Even if they make very little from the sales of the recorded music itself if they do well enough to sell out larger venues when they tour it still winds up being a profitable move. Sometimes its a choice between being an "indie" that does well to get a crowd at the local bar or rolling the dice on being the next Coldplay (or pick your favorite band) and selling out stadiums.

So keep dreaming of the demise of the big labels and the MAFIAA. Maybe someday it really will happen. But I'm not holding my breath.

Edit: Forgot to address follow-up point:

"As cost to produce quality content continues to fall off a cliff..." Another common misperception. The cost of the electronics to record and distribute the material may be falling off a cliff, but that is only PART of the equation, and ironically a shrinking part. The costs of many other parts of creating a successful recording or motion picture have stayed about the same or gone up. Yes, the formula has shifted a bit, but not as much as you might think.

Look at it this way: Maybe at one time scalpals were really expensive but now they're cheap. But just because anyone can afford to buy their own scalpal doesn't mean everybody qualified to be a surgeon. But just because you can now get the same results with a few hundred dollars worth of equipment instead of the hundreds of thousands it used to cost doesn't mean that everybody is automatically qualified to be a recording engineer. Problem is, a lot of people THINK they are.

The whole problem with "...musicians selling their wares directly to consumers..." is it assumes that the musicians aren't just good musicians but also good business managers, marketers, promoters, producers, etc. SOMETIMES this is true, but rarely. In fact, I'd say that typically the kind of person that makes the best musician is also usually the last person you'd want to be in charge of a business. It almost seems to be mutually exclusive. Most musicians would prefer to just make music and let someone else handle the nuts and bolts part of the business world that they can't or don't want to. So the musicians need help from others, sometimes many others.

My experience has been a bit different*, but selling music directly to customers doesn't assume that in any way. An artist without a record label can still hire all of the above.

Quote:

Ever seen an artist have a blockbuster debut album and the follow-up is a flop? This is frequently due to the "artist" assuming that after their initial success they now know enough to produce their own material and don't realize that the PRODUCER had a lot more to do with the success of their project than they did.

I'd generally say that the sophomore slump tends to be more likely to be the result of pressure from the label to repeat their initial success.

Quote:

"As cost to produce quality content continues to fall off a cliff..." Another common misperception. The cost of the electronics to record and distribute the material may be falling off a cliff, but that is only PART of the equation, and ironically a shrinking part. The costs of many other parts of creating a successful recording or motion picture have stayed about the same or gone up. Yes, the formula has shifted a bit, but not as much as you might think.

Look at it this way: Maybe at one time scalpals were really expensive but now they're cheap. But just because anyone can afford to buy their own scalpal doesn't mean everybody qualified to be a surgeon. But just because you can now get the same results with a few hundred dollars worth of equipment instead of the hundreds of thousands it used to cost doesn't mean that everybody is automatically qualified to be a recording engineer. Problem is, a lot of people THINK they are.

It still takes lots of work to learn to properly record music, but there are plenty of people with the time to learn that, while other, more significant barriers to entry existed in the past. And let's be honest, most professional recording engineers are not qualified to be recording engineers.

*In my experience, anyone who's worth a damn is able to sell themselves. I'm not claiming that musical talent necessarily correlates with the ability to sell oneself, but talent is a rather minor component of 'making it,' and certainly isn't enough to make you worth a damn. If you are talented and you don't have someone very close to you, like a bandmate, that has a decent amount of business sense, you will either go nowhere or up shit creek without a paddle.

I swear as god is my witness this foolishness is going to continue until WE THE PEOPLE get a clue and stop buying music, movies, concerts, and any other product brought forth by the recording industry. As long as we continue to support their war against US this will continue. I have not been to a movie in 5 years and refuse to go to concerts, I WILL NOT SUPPORT THEIR WAR. As long as you people want to support them and get taken to trial for sharing your music and movies then go ahead and GET RAPED.

Anybody who calls Robertson a pioneer or trailblazer doesn't really know him that well. I can speak from experience because I have worked for him in the past. I've dealt with him face to face. He likes to build up this myth that he's a great pioneer who's fighting for the little guy. A sort of David vs. Goliath.

The reality is that he's an unethical huckster who's out to make a quick buck. He has good ideas but, he is incapable of implementing them properly. He cuts corners and throws together shoddy products to get something to sell quickly. Then, he lies, spams and oversells his half-baked product to get you to give him money. He doesn't care about the law. He doesn't care about the customers. He only cares about making money fast. The goal for all of his companies has been to grow the user base as quickly as possible then sell to some unsuspecting fool before they realize what they've bought.

Personally, he's a very difficult man to work for. He doesn't listen. He ignores his engineer's input and advice. He forces them to implement quick and dirty hacks instead of actual software solutions. Every one of his systems is cobbled together with bailing wire, duct tape, and bubble gum. There's no regard for long term stability or customer privacy. He figures he'll be long gone by the time anyone notices. He regularly screams and yells at his employees and throws temper tantrums like a 5 year old. He is abusive, condescending, arrogant, and creates a hostile work environment. He doesn't know how to treat people and regularly violates human resource laws. You might think of him as a pioneer but, if you had to spend one day writing code for him you'd quit. He's probably bipolar or a sociopath of some sort. Most of his developers don't last more than a year. Some last only a few days. He's left thousands of software developers in his wake and has a very bad reputation in San Diego.

People who've worked for him described him as the type of guy who straps a lightning rod to his head and then runs around in a field during an electrical storm. When he gets struck by lightning he's always surprised and offended. He plays the victim. "How could this happen to me?" The reality is that he's a reckless gambler who disregards all the warning signs. He takes unnecessary risks against the counsel of his lawyers, his engineers, and marketing and sales dept. He likes to taunt big companies that he knows will sue him. Then he jumps in the spotlight and grabs the microphone. He's like the Al Sharpton of the tech world. As long as people are paying attention to him then he keeps doing it.

Maybe we need a canary in the mine for the tech world? Maybe someone does have to force the issue and prove things in court? I suppose it's a necessary evil. But, do yourself a favor: if you see Michael Robertson selling some new product, stay away. Don't give him your hard earned money. He'll stick it in his pocket and go get sued by someone else. All of his products are on a self-destruct course set by him. He's the captain who sinks his own ship every time. He isn't capable of creating successful companies because he's more interested in proving a point than caring for his customers.

"EMI will continue to pursue its case against Robertson, to ensure that its songwriters and artists are properly compensated for their creative work," EMI said.

I'd like to hear them say under oath that their sole interest is the above underlined for these lawsuits. After a good perjury charge, maybe some healthy dose of reality might settle in.

I don't understand why these Judges haven't wisened up more to these copyright trolls (valid name, no? They produce none of the products they sue over?).

Problem is that most of the artists and songwriters give these guys carte-blanche to sue on their behalf. Until that practice is stopped, you will keep on seeing more of these lawsuits in the future.

Thats the thing, its NOT the artists, its the rights holders, which in most cases are NOT the artists but the labels. the LABELS give the RIAA etc carte-blanche to sue on their behalf. The artists do only in so much as they were required to sign off on it as part of their record deal.

The whole problem with "...musicians selling their wares directly to consumers..." is it assumes that the musicians aren't just good musicians but also good business managers, marketers, promoters, producers, etc. SOMETIMES this is true, but rarely. In fact, I'd say that typically the kind of person that makes the best musician is also usually the last person you'd want to be in charge of a business. It almost seems to be mutually exclusive. Most musicians would prefer to just make music and let someone else handle the nuts and bolts part of the business world that they can't or don't want to. So the musicians need help from others, sometimes many others.

OTOH, it appears that in order to sign a non-exploitative contract with a record label, and then keep close enough track of that label's business that they don't cheat you out of whatever that exploitive contract leaves you, you have to be exceedingly good at business, accounting, contract law, and a few other subjects. And we routinely hear that those who sign the contracts are to blame for being exploited (after all, nobody forced them to sign with a gun to their guitar neck, right?), not those big, bad corporations actually doing the exploitation.

What's the added value to the artist when no matter what happens, they have to manage their own business (either because nobody else is doing it, or because those doing it appear to be hell-bent on taking everything for themselves, legally or otherwise)?

Quote:

So keep dreaming of the demise of the big labels and the MAFIAA. Maybe someday it really will happen. But I'm not holding my breath.

This I can agree with.

Quote:

"As cost to produce quality content continues to fall off a cliff..." Another common misperception. The cost of the electronics to record and distribute the material may be falling off a cliff, but that is only PART of the equation, and ironically a shrinking part. The costs of many other parts of creating a successful recording or motion picture have stayed about the same or gone up. Yes, the formula has shifted a bit, but not as much as you might think.

Look at it this way: Maybe at one time scalpals were really expensive but now they're cheap. But just because anyone can afford to buy their own scalpal doesn't mean everybody qualified to be a surgeon. But just because you can now get the same results with a few hundred dollars worth of equipment instead of the hundreds of thousands it used to cost doesn't mean that everybody is automatically qualified to be a recording engineer. Problem is, a lot of people THINK they are.

Well, this is really the same problem as above: there's no guarantee that the major record label will provide a given band with a quality producer, promoter, advertiser, etc. There's no guarantee that they'll allow a quality employee to actually do quality work, either. Again, the artist will have to watch who they get assigned, pay attention to what their contract allows/demands, and generally advocate for themselves as if the label is an opponent rather than an employee. Again, if the artist has to manage all of this stuff anyway, what's the benefit of the big record label, aside from the lottery ticket to stardom, if the label decides to throw money and talent at the recording/producing/promoting side?